Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

Does anyone know what the resolution is being transmitted on HBO and Showtime series such as Ray Donovan and Masters of Sex for example, on FiOS. Is it me or is it not as sharp as it used to be? Sometimes on dark scenes it really looks like the source is compressed. Other times on regular broadcast TV, the picture is excellent. I know the STB is sending 1080P but i'm talking about the source. Maybe i'm watching too much streaming TV such as Netflix?

It's fairly easy to measure the effective or viewable resolution. Just use a test Blu-ray (or another multiburst pattern source) and this technique of comparing resolution line widths. The link compares two Blu-ray images, with their higher bit rate and crisper detail, and only one 1080i golf broadcast via FIOS. But the maximum visible effective resolution from any source is possible.

You have to be careful to use the right multiplier for rez per picture width: A 16X9 HD standard broadcast is 1.78 while a 4X3 image is only 1.33 times the measured resolution for its finest visible details. You couldn't use ~2.40 for a movie with thick black bars on your 16X9 1080p screen because it can't display more than 1920 pixels horizontally, unlike many movie-theater projectors/screens. I used 1.84 as a multiplier for the Blu-ray movie I tested, which results, math-wise at least, in a higher effective resolution than using only 1.78 max for my 65" Panasonic plasma pro monitor. Other opinions on that?

Tried measuring the max effective resolution of another movie that should provide excellent details, but didn't seem to. Movies, of course, sometimes contain 'artistic' filtering and other techniqes, such as defocusing, that reduce fine details. 24-fps capture also greatly cuts temporal resolution.

I've occasionally measured other fine details with my small plastic millimeter ruler from the screen, but max readings--not surprisingly due to standard digital processing--are similar to the golf-course-detail reading outlined in my linked testing (above). There are other methods of measuring the full spectrum of effective resolution using a computer or other costly hardware, as the sublink in this display-calibration post outlines.

Also noticed an improvement in PQ when switching to FIOS from TWC several years ago (and posted here about it). That was well before they began putting 3 channels rather than 2 within 256-QAMs (AIUI}. Have noticed a few horrendous fine-detail breakups recently on a few channels when motion is involved, but haven't seen this on most channels. Since fine static details also disappear before/with such breakups, perhaps effective rez measurements, comparing vertically oriented details (for horizontal resolution) with known multiburst resolutions or other test patterns, such as 'trumpet-shaped' cones with gradually converging B&W lines, will reveal the sorry results of not using the incredible full-bandwidth potential of optical fibers. -- John

Does anyone know what the resolution is being transmitted on HBO and Showtime series such as Ray Donovan and Masters of Sex for example, on FiOS. Is it me or is it not as sharp as it used to be? Sometimes on dark scenes it really looks like the source is compressed. Other times on regular broadcast TV, the picture is excellent. I know the STB is sending 1080P but i'm talking about the source. Maybe i'm watching too much streaming TV such as Netflix?

It doesn't help that FIOS takes the original H.264 signal and converts it to MPEG2. If they would have switched everything to H.264 then we could view them without being bastardized.

Does anyone know what the resolution is being transmitted on HBO and Showtime series such as Ray Donovan and Masters of Sex for example, on FiOS. Is it me or is it not as sharp as it used to be? Sometimes on dark scenes it really looks like the source is compressed. Other times on regular broadcast TV, the picture is excellent. I know the STB is sending 1080P but i'm talking about the source. Maybe i'm watching too much streaming TV such as Netflix?

You are asking the wrong question.

But to answer your question, Showtime is send out at 1920x1080i resolution from the source and the STB outputs it in your house at the same resolution.

I think that (the filming) is the real issue. Each "film" (they really don't use much actual "film" these days) director may go for a unique "look" and render the video that way.

Yes I used the work "filming" loosely
So I have my Quantum STB video settings to 1080P which is the highest and I've adjusted the sharpness and all the other settings on the TV. Don't get me wrong but the picture watching HBO and Showtime looks soft to me compared to CNN, NBC or CBS for example. It's almost as if they are using different resolution cameras.

I wish someone here knew how all this works. For example the color saturation, sharpness, etc varies from channel to channel. I though there were transmission standards set a while back on all these parameters.

Yes I used the work "filming" loosely
So I have my Quantum STB video settings to 1080P which is the highest and I've adjusted the sharpness and all the other settings on the TV. Don't get me wrong but the picture watching HBO and Showtime looks soft to me compared to CNN, NBC or CBS for example. It's almost as if they are using different resolution cameras.

I wish someone here knew how all this works. For example the color saturation, sharpness, etc varies from channel to channel. I though there were transmission standards set a while back on all these parameters.

Had the same questions in 2000 when I joined the forums. After reading hundreds of tech papers, forum posts, and articles on HD resolution and 'sharpness' since then, last year I finally got around to actually measuring differences as outlined above. Apologies if it seems too obscure. Haven't read about anyone else trying it either...yet .

Didn't post the Showtime format resolution versus actual or effective resolution because that's the crux of the whole issue. For those not understanding the terms it may require studying until the light bulb goes on--as it did with me. Have a Notepad folder with hundreds of AVSforum links on the topic, many with tech- paper sublinks, and can post some of them if anyone is unclear about specific areas. -- John

This is from a file capture in native (unmolested) format using an HDHomeRun Prime with cablecard.

I will note that when I play back the file using an Oppo BDP-93, that the playback is noticeably superior to when viewed with the Fios Motorola boxes. There are still very noticeable macro-blocking observed presumably due to the H.264 to MPEG conversion others have mentioned.

Yes I used the work "filming" loosely
So I have my Quantum STB video settings to 1080P which is the highest and I've adjusted the sharpness and all the other settings on the TV. Don't get me wrong but the picture watching HBO and Showtime looks soft to me compared to CNN, NBC or CBS for example. It's almost as if they are using different resolution cameras.

I wish someone here knew how all this works. For example the color saturation, sharpness, etc varies from channel to channel. I though there were transmission standards set a while back on all these parameters.

All digital camera's in use today are 1080 x 1920 or higher (4K cameras are now pretty much standard) - even when the network is 720p (ABC, Fox, ESPN, etc). For HDTV there are certainly standards today for color, saturation, etc. (BTW: Is your set "calibrated" to those standards?) that are uniform for all TV (broadcast, cable, or satellite). But I think that you are basically talking about the "look" that the program's director (NOT the network) is trying to convey.

An example of this is the "Live TV" (often called the "Soap Opera Effect") vs the "Film" look. (I get into raging arguments with my Son over this.) Traditionally the "Film" look looks "softer" than the "live" look. That is intentional. Many of the programs on network TV ("The Good Wife" on CBS is one example) for for the "film" look, largely because those programs have been traditionally shot on film. As HBO largely shows movies, their stuff tends towards the "film" look.

Perhaps the most influential item in the "look" of a piece is the lighting: For a sharp look lights are placed to create lots of highlights. A dark atmosphere is created by not using fill lights - so there are lots of shadows. By not having lots of shadows and highlights, the picture looks "soft".

There also is a stage in production where the color is manipulated (by the colorist) to, first be uniform from shot to shot, and to achieve the desired "look".

Watching game of thrones bluray on my 4k 240hz motionflow high is like looking out a window at something actually happening right now....sweet.

Yea showtime is just bad - NFLN & showtime both show the exact same show "inside the nfl" yet it looks alot cleaner/sharper on NFLN than showtime.

OK that's a good example that I forgot about. Game of Thrones is very sharp when I watch it on HBO, even sharper on Netflix.
And yes my TV is calibrated to Rec.709.

So as you said it's probably the way they are shooting it.

It's kind of a shame because when I rent a new movie, I usually rent from Vudu and stream it because it's sharper than if I rent and watch it on FiOS. FiOS has the capability but they need to figure out what they are going to do, to manage all of the exploding content.

Not sure if it was posted here but for some reason Verizon has moved Up from 224 to 238. When you try to type in 224 it goes to 223 GAC. So if you're looking for Growing Pains, 7th Heaven, Touched by an Angel, Judging Amy, or The Parkers tune to Ch. 238

There are a myriad of variables which affect apparent sharpness at the final distribution point, but a significant measure of a given image's look is determined at acquisition:

1.) CNN, local HD news, etc. is acquired a 1/60th of a second (e.g., 1080p60). Dramatic series are typically acquired at 1/48th of a second, either when using Super35-format digital cine cameras (e.g., Arri Alexa, RED, Sony F65, etc.), or a 180-degree shutter-angle when using a 35mm motion picture film camera. Part of the decrease in apparent sharpness of "filmic" content is due to greater subject motion-blur from the the longer exposure times used in dramatic acquisition.

2.) Traditional video acquisition (CNN, local HD news, etc.) using 2/3" ENG cameras typically employ a "snappy" characteristic curve (tone curve), often with a slightly enhanced in-camera sharpness profile enabled. Dramatic acquisition often employs "softer" characteristic curves with shallower gamma, a smoother toe/shoulder, and more subtle knee roll-off. The camera's specific characteristic curve is determined by the DP, DIT (digital imaging technician), and director at the time of acquisition (but only as a LUT if acquiring RAW), and is typically further modified in post-production (e.g., color-grading, digital intermediate, transfer, etc.).

4.) The smaller sensor size (2/3") used in both studio and ENG video cameras also inherently produces more apparent depth-of-field (more of the foreground and background appears in-focus), whereas dramatic production more commonly employs shallow-focus techniques for dramatic/aesthetic effect, which is much easier to achieve when using larger sensors (e.g., Super35, APS-C, 24mm x 35mm, etc.).

There are a myriad of variables which affect apparent sharpness at the final distribution point, but a significant measure of a given image's look is determined at acquisition:

1.) CNN, local HD news, etc. is acquired a 1/60th of a second (e.g., 1080p60). Dramatic series are typically acquired at 1/48th of a second, either when using Super35-format digital cine cameras (e.g., Arri Alexa, RED, Sony F65, etc.), or a 180-degree shutter-angle when using a 35mm motion picture film camera. Part of the decrease in apparent sharpness of "filmic" content is due to greater subject motion-blur from the the longer exposure times used in dramatic acquisition.

2.) Traditional video acquisition (CNN, local HD news, etc.) using 2/3" ENG cameras typically employ a "snappy" characteristic curve (tone curve), often with a slightly enhanced in-camera sharpness profile enabled. Dramatic acquisition often employs "softer" characteristic curves with shallower gamma, a smoother toe/shoulder, and more subtle knee roll-off. The camera's specific characteristic curve is determined by the DP, DIT (digital imaging technician), and director at the time of acquisition (but only as a LUT if acquiring RAW), and is typically further modified in post-production (e.g., color-grading, digital intermediate, transfer, etc.).

4.) The smaller sensor size (2/3") used in both studio and ENG video cameras also inherently produces more apparent depth-of-field (more of the foreground and background appears in-focus), whereas dramatic production more commonly employs shallow-focus techniques for dramatic/aesthetic effect, which is much easier to achieve when using larger sensors (e.g., Super35, APS-C, 24mm x 35mm, etc.).

4.) The smaller sensor size (2/3") used in both studio and ENG video cameras also inherently produces more apparent depth-of-field (more of the foreground and background appears in-focus), whereas dramatic production more commonly employs shallow-focus techniques for dramatic/aesthetic effect, which is much easier to achieve when using larger sensors (e.g., Super35, APS-C, 24mm x 35mm, etc.).

Agree, nice write-up, LEVEL4. Could you also outline, simply, why 2/3" sensors deliver better DoF than ~35mm-size sensors in digital-cinema cameras? Spent a while going through an old photography text recently that had a great explanation about film/lenses and DoF (to help write a comment on Sony's new 4k, 2/3-inch-RGB sensors, 4300 camera ), but couldn't find the section. Thanks. And there's also those 'nasty' (IMO) detail-robbing lens filters, the subject of numerous older threads here, that DOPs insist upon. :-). -- John

While those two conditions are clear, the reason why smaller sensors appear to yield more depth-of-field is less intuitive. Take a crop-frame DSLR like a Nikon D3300. The "crop-factor" of its APS-C sized sensor is 1.5x, when compared to a full-frame sensor such as the one in Nikon's flagship professional body, the D4 (approximately 24mm x 36mm). This crop-factor means that with any given lens, it will have an apparent field-of-view 1.5x that of the lens' focal length. For example, a 50mm lens mounted on a crop-frame body would have a field-of-view equivalent to what a 75mm lens would look like on a full-frame body (i.e., 50mm x 1.5 = 75mm).

Now, if using that same 50mm lens on both cameras, and if the desired image is of, say, an apple which fills the screen, the crop-frame camera would necessarily have a greater subject-to-camera distance, whereas the full-frame camera would have a shorter subject-to-camera distance in order to achieve the same image size. Therefore, recalling that reduced subject-to-camera distance results in shallower depth-of-field, if using the same lens on cameras with different-sized sensors, while attempting to achieve the same image size (i.e., magnification), this results in a more shallow-focus image when that lens is used on the larger-sized sensor.

While those two conditions are clear, the reason why smaller sensors appear to yield more depth-of-field is less intuitive. Take a crop-frame DSLR like a Nikon D3300. The "crop-factor" of its APS-C sized sensor is 1.5x, when compared to a full-frame sensor such as the one in Nikon's flagship professional body, the D4 (approximately 24mm x 36mm). This crop-factor means that with any given lens, it will have an apparent field-of-view 1.5x that of the lens' focal length. For example, a 50mm lens mounted on a crop-frame body would have a field-of-view equivalent to what a 75mm lens would look like on a full-frame body (i.e., 50mm x 1.5 = 75mm).

Now, if using that same 50mm lens on both cameras, and if the desired image is of, say, an apple which fills the screen, the crop-frame camera would necessarily have a greater subject-to-camera distance, whereas the full-frame camera would have a shorter subject-to-camera distance in order to achieve the same image size. Therefore, recalling that reduced subject-to-camera distance results in shallower depth-of-field, if using the same lens on cameras with different-sized sensors, while attempting to achieve the same image size (i.e., magnification), this results in a more shallow-focus image when that lens is used on the larger-sized sensor.

Thanks again. That should save me lots of time hunting for an answer that doesn't exist, strictly speaking as you say. -- John

Thanks again. That should save me lots of time hunting for an answer that doesn't exist, strictly speaking as you say. -- John

Sure. I should add that as the sensor becomes smaller, the focal length required to obtain similar fields-of-view that are typical of those used on full-frame DSLRs or large-format digital cine cameras, also becomes smaller, while the lens' physical size also decreases.

So, when dealing with very small sensors (such as those used in compact point-and-shoot cameras and cell-phone cameras), the lens' focal lengths begin to get very "short." For example, while a 20mm lens on a Super35-format digital cine camera produces a wide-angle of view (30mm full-frame equivalent), an iPhone6 with its tiny 1/2.6" sensor uses about a 4mm lens to achieve a similar angle-of-view due to its large crop-factor (approximately 7.5x). Also, with smaller lenses, the actual size of the aperture (regardless of the lens' marked f/number) is physically much smaller than the aperture openings on lenses made for larger sensors. This inherent decrease in aperture size in smaller lenses further increases depth-of-field, and is the principle reason small-sensored cameras are associated with large amounts of depth-of-field.

anyone using fios in NYC?
I seem to have lost FX (channel 53) and FXHD (channel 553) a few weeks ago.
I am using a cablecard with Tivo Roamio.
Now when I tune to these channels, i get a not authorized msg.
I called verizon and they said I should be getting this channel so wanted to see if others were affected by this.

anyone using fios in NYC?
I seem to have lost FX (channel 53) and FXHD (channel 553) a few weeks ago.
I am using a cablecard with Tivo Roamio.
Now when I tune to these channels, i get a not authorized msg.
I called verizon and they said I should be getting this channel so wanted to see if others were affected by this.

It sounds like you cable card was never paired. What happens when you go to HBo, Cinemax or National Geographi? Those channels also require a paired cable card. All the Fox channels, except locals, recently changed to the copy once flag. So you need a properly paired cable card to be able to view these channels. Just like it has been for the past three years with Cinemax and HBO.